==== Front ACS Omega ACS Omega ao acsodf ACS Omega 2470-1343 American Chemical Society 10.1021/acsomega.3c01819 Article Phytochemical Composition, In Vitro Antimicrobial, Antioxidant, and Enzyme Inhibition Activities, and In Silico Molecular Docking and Dynamics Simulations of Centaurea lycaonica: A Computational and Experimental Approach https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7123-8396 Fatullayev Hanifa *† https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3860-7222 Paşayeva Leyla ‡ https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8146-1663 Celik Ismail † İnce Ufuk § Tugay Osman ∥ † Department of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, Faculty of Pharmacy, Erciyes University, Kayseri 38039, Türkiye ‡ Department of Pharmacognosy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Erciyes University, Kayseri 38039, Türkiye § Department of Pharmaceutical Microbiology, Faculty of Pharmacy, Erciyes University, Kayseri 38039, Türkiye ∥ Department of Pharmaceutical Botany, Faculty of Pharmacy, Selçuk University, Konya 42130, Türkiye * Email: henifef@erciyes.edu.tr. 13 06 2023 27 06 2023 8 25 2285422865 17 03 2023 30 05 2023 © 2023 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society 2023 The Authors https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Permits the broadest form of re-use including for commercial purposes, provided that author attribution and integrity are maintained (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Centaurea lycaonica is a local endemic species from the Centaurea L. genus. The Centaurea species has a wide range of usage in treating diseases in folk medicine. There are limited biological activity studies on this species in the literature. This study investigated enzyme inhibition and antimicrobial activity, antioxidant effect, and chemical content of extract and fractions of C. lycaonica. Enzyme inhibition activity was tested by α-amylase, α-glucosidase, and tyrosinase enzyme inhibition methods and antimicrobial activity by the microdilution method. The antioxidant activity was investigated using DPPH•, ABTS•+, and FRAP tests. The chemical content was determined by LC-MS/MS. The methanol extract showed the highest activity for α-glucosidase and α-amylase, even surpassing the positive control acarbose, with IC50 values of 56.333 ± 0.986 and 172.800 ± 0.816 μg/mL, respectively. Additionally, the ethyl acetate fraction also exhibited high activity for α-amylase with an IC50 value of 204.067 ± 1.739 μg/mL and tyrosinase with an IC50 value of 213.900 ± 1.553 μg/mL. Moreover, this extract and fraction were found to have the highest total phenolic and flavonoid contents and antioxidant activity. Additionally, LC-MS/MS analyses of active extract and fraction revealed mainly the presence of phenolic compounds and flavonoids. In silico molecular docking and molecular dynamics simulation studies of determining compounds apigenin and myristoleic acid, common in CLM and CLE extracts and active against α-glucosidase and α-amylase, were performed. In conclusion, methanol extract and ethyl acetate fraction showed potential enzyme inhibition and antioxidant activity as a natural agent. Molecular modeling studies corroborate the findings of in vitro activity analyses. document-id-old-9ao3c01819 document-id-new-14ao3c01819 ccc-price ==== Body pmc1 Introduction The use of medicinal plants in the treatment and prevention of diseases is becoming increasingly common. The main reasons are the safe side-effect and interaction profile of medicinal plants and natural agents compared to synthetic ones, easy accessibility, and wide therapeutic application range. Researchers have focused on using medicinal plants to treat diseases in recent years. Many drugs used today have been synthesized, inspired by bioactive compounds in plants.1 Free radicals cause hypertension, diabetes, cancer, and hyperpigmentation. As a more specific subgroup of free radicals, the damage caused by reactive oxygen species (ROS) to cellular structures is prevented by scavenging them with antioxidants. There is a balance between the antioxidant system and free radicals. Plants are rich sources of natural antioxidants, which are preferred because of their safety and low toxicity.2 The Centaurea lycaonica Boiss. & Heldr. species is included together with C. amaena Boiss. & Bal., C. aphrodisea Boiss., C. cadmea Boiss., C. hierapolitana Boiss., C. luschaniana Heimerl ex Stapf, C. lycia Boiss., C. tossiensis Freyn & Sint., and C. wagenitzii Hub.-Mor. species in Sect. Phalolepis (Cass.) DC. of Centaurea L. genus. The general characteristics of Sect. Phalolepis can be given as follows: Appendages almost orbicular, hyaline with a firmer center, entire or irregularly lacerate, ending in a short mucro or spinule, decurrent or not decurrent.3C. lycaonica, known as “Zarif düğme”,4 is perennial, stems to 30 cm, simple or with one branch, lower leaves pinnatipartite with linear segments, c. 1 mm broad, sparsely arachnoid above, upper leaves simple, similar to segments of lower Figure 1. Involucre 10–11 × 5–6 mm, appendages large, almost concealing basal part of phyllaries, almost circular, c. 3 mm broad, with a dark brown, firm central part, and broad minutely denticulate and usually lacerate hyaline, shortly decurrent margin, emarginate at the tip, terminal mucro absent or minute. Flowers are rose-purple, marginal, scarcely radiant. Achenes are 2.5–3.5 mm and pappus is 3 mm. Its flowering time is from June to July, and it grows on open hillsides in short turf, sparse coniferous woods, and scrub at an elevation of 1570–1580 m. C. lycaonica is distributed only in Konya (Central Anatolia) and has an Irano-Turanian element. The species is morphologically close to C. luschaniana, differing primarily by having the plant nearly glabrous and terminal segment of basal leaves 1–2 mm broad.3 Figure 1 General view of Centaurea lycaonica Boiss. & Heldr (Photo: by Osman Tugay). Molecular docking studies are an essential computational method in modern drug research.5 This modeling method allows simulating and predicting the interactions of especially small molecular weight compounds with the target macromolecules such as proteins, enzymes, RNA, and DNA.6 Molecular dynamics (MD) simulations are frequently used in drug designs to explain the interactions, stability, and dynamical changes of protein–ligand complexes obtained from molecular docking.7 Based on the available literature, no prior studies have investigated the phytochemical and biological activities of the C. lycaonica species. Therefore, this study aimed at investigating the potential α-amylase, α-glucosidase, and tyrosinase inhibitory effects, as well as the antimicrobial activities, antioxidant potential (measured through DPPH, ABTS, and FRAP tests), and phytochemical analyses of the active extract/fraction (using LC-MS/MS). Apigenin and myristoleic acid were discovered to be common compounds in methanol extract and an active fraction (Figure 2). Figure 2 Chemical structure of acarbose and common compounds of methanol extract and active fraction. 2 Materials and Methods 2.1 Plant Material The aerial parts of C. lycaonica were harvested from the area of Konya province in Türkiye and identified by Prof. Dr. Osman Tugay (O.Tugay 16.843 & C. Ceylan). 2.2 Extraction of the Plant Material The plant material weighing 600 g was ground after drying. Maceration with methanol (3 × 24 h) was employed to prepare the extract. The methanol extract (CLM) was subsequently fractionated using solvents with varying polarities. As a result, petroleum ether (CLP), ethyl acetate (CLE), n-butanol (CLB), and water (CLW) fractions were obtained. At the end of extraction, all extract and fractions evaporated in vacuo (37 °C), and then lyophilized. 2.3 In Vitro Studies 2.3.1 Enzyme Inhibition Assays To study the inhibition activity of α-amylase and α-glucosidase,8 the extract and fractions were diluted to 40–2000 μg/mL concentrations. Acarbose was used as a positive control during the assay. The absorbance of the samples was read at 540 nm for the α-amylase assay and at 400 nm for the α-glucosidase assay. The inhibitory activity of both enzymes was calculated using eq (1)1 The tyrosinase inhibitory activity assay was performed at 492 nm using a microplate reader.9 According to the method, 20 μL of various concentrations of extract and fractions, 20 μL of enzyme solution (250 U/mL), and 100 μL of phosphate buffer (0.1 M, pH 6.8) were mixed in a 96-well plate. After 10 min of incubation, 20 μL of l-tyrosine solution (3 mM) was added and incubated for 30 min at 25 °C. Kojic acid was used as a positive control in this assay. 2.3.2 Total Phenolic (TPC) and Total Flavonoid (TFC) Contents In this research, the TPC and the TFC were determined with slight modification of the method of Zengin et al.10 The TPC results were calculated as gallic acid equivalents (GAE) per gram of extract. The TFC values as milligrams of catechin equivalent. 2.3.3 Antioxidant Activity Assays In the DPPH• scavenging activity assay, different concentrations of extract and fractions were mixed with 0.05 M Tris-HCl buffer and DPPH solution.11 This research used butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) as a positive control. The ABTS+• scavenging capacity of the extract and fractions was determined as the Trolox equivalent. ABTS solution was diluted with methanol to an absorbance of 0.700 ± 0.02 at 734 nm to begin the assay. Then the sample solution was added to the ABTS solution, and the color change was recorded.12 In the FRAP assay, the FRAP values of extract and fractions were determined at 2, 1, and 0,5 mg/mL concentrations.11 In this assay, the change of color was recorded at 593 nm. The results were expressed as mmol of Fe2+ equivalents per g of extract/fraction weight (mmol Fe2+ /g). 2.3.4 Antimicrobial Activity In this study, the sensitivity of Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 29213, Escherichia coli ATCC 25922 (Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria, respectively), Candida albicans ATCC 10231 (fungus), and the clinical isolates of these microorganisms to plant extract and fractions were tested according to the method of Paşayeva et al.11 The study was conducted according to the Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) M100-S28 protocol for bacteria13 and the CLSI M27-A3 protocol for fungi.14 2.4 Phytochemical Analysis The phytochemical compositions of active methanol extract and the ethyl acetate fraction were determined by LC-MS/MS. The CLM and CLE stock solution was prepared in methanol at 10 μg/mL concentration. The samples were directly injected in LC/MS-MS at a 0.5 mL/min flow rate and an injection volume of 1 μL. The mobile phase was a mixture of acetonitrile (A) and methanol/formic acid (99:1, v/v) (B) as 80% solvent A and 20% solvent B. 2.5 Statistical Analysis Statistical analysis was performed using GraphPad Prism Software (La Jolla, CA). Statistically significant values were compared using one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s post hoc test, and p values of less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. 2.6 In Silico Studies 2.6.1 Molecular Docking Molecular docking was performed using the AutoDock Vina-based15 CB-Dock2 server (https://cadd.labshare.cn/cb-dock2/php/index.php).16 The compounds apigenin (PubChem ID: 5280443), myristoleic acid (PubChem ID: 5281119), and standard acarbose (PubChem ID: 41774) were acquired from the PubChem database in the form of 3D SDF files (https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/), which were subsequently used for docking purposes. For target enzymes, PDB ID: 5NN8(17) for α-glucosidase and PDB ID: 1CPU(18) for α-amylase were selected from the RCSB Protein Data Bank (PDB) and downloaded in the PDB file format. Missing residues in the 5NN8 crystal structure were completed with AlphaFold tools19 in ChimeraX v1.4.10,20 After the protein and ligand structures were obtained and prepared, they were submitted to the CB-Dock2 server. Visualization and analysis of protein–ligand interactions were performed using UCSF ChimeraX v.1.4 and BIOVIA Discovery Studio Visualizer v.21. 2.6.2 Molecular Dynamics Simulations Molecular dynamics (MD) simulations in this study were performed using Gromacs v.2021.2.21 The MD input files required for the simulation of protein–ligand complexes obtained from AutoDock Vina were prepared with the default settings of the CHARMM-GUI web server (https://www.charmm-gui.org/, accessed on 21.11.2022).22 AMBER99SB force fields23 were chosen to create topology files, which were also suitable for simulating protein–ligand complexes.24 One hundred fifty ns of MD simulation was run to 2 fs, and 1500 frames were recorded. MD trajectory root-mean-square deviation (RMSD) and H bond analysis were performed with gmx rms and gmx hbond scripts. Principal component analysis (PCA) was performed with gmx covar and gmx anaeig scripts. Binding free energy molecular mechanics Poisson–Boltzmann surface area (MMPBSA) measurements between the ligand and the protein were performed using gmx_MMPBSA tools.25 Trajectory plots were created with Grace-5.1.22, and MD animation videos were created with the PyMOL Molecular Graphics System v.2.4.1. 3 Results 3.1 α-Glucosidase, α-Amylase, and Tyrosinase Enzyme Inhibition Activity The results of α-glucosidase and α-amylase and tyrosinase activities are described in Table 1. As a result, the CLM and CLE were found to be more active than others. It has been seen that the CLM extract was found to be even more active than acarbose in α-glucosidase (IC50 = 56.333 ± 0.986 μg/mL) and α-amylase (IC50 = 172.800 ± 0.816μg/mL) assays. Moreover, the CLE (IC50 = 204.067 ± 1.739 μg/mL) fraction also showed the highest inhibitory activity than acarbose in the α-amylase test. According to tyrosinase activity results, it has been seen that CLE (IC50 = 213.900 ± 1.553 μg/mL) fraction showed moderate activity compared with other extracts. According to the enzyme inhibitory results, the activities of the extract and fractions are statistically significant between each other and positive standards (p < 0.05). Table 1 α-Glucosidase, α-Amylase, and Tyrosinase Results of C. lycaonica Extract and Fractionsa sample names α-glucosidase assay IC50 (μg/mL) α-amylase assay IC50 (μg/mL) Tyrosinase assay IC50 (μg/mL) CLM 56.333 ± 0.986a 172.800 ± 0.816a 261.667 ± 1.716a CLP 396.033 ± 0.558b 437.767 ± 0.073b 565.192 ± 1.664b CLE 435.833 ± 0.350c 204.067 ± 1.739c 213.900 ± 1.553c CLB - 960.600 ± 0.608d 245.301 ± 1.612d CLW - 310.767 ± 0.312e 332.622 ± 2.212e acarbose 145.707 ± 0.451d 276.000 ± 0.205f - kojic acid     76.657 ± 1.370f a Values are expressed as mean ± SD (n = 3). Values with the different letters within each column are significantly different (p < 0.05). “-“ not calculated. CLM: methanol extract of C. lycaonica, CLP: petroleum ether fraction of C. lycaonica, CLE: ethyl acetate fraction of C. lycaonica, CLB: n-butanol fraction of C. lycaonica, CLW: water fraction of C. lycaonica. 3.2 Total Phenolic Content (TPC) and Total Flavonoid Content (TFC) The results of TPC and TFC contents of extract and fractions are given in Table 2. It was shown that among the extract and fractions, the CLM extract contains higher amounts of total phenolic compounds (283.168 ± 2.511 mgGAE/gextract) and total flavonoids (42.212 ± 1.411 mgCA/gextract) than others. According to the results, there was no statistically significant difference (p > 0.05) between the total contents of phenolic compounds of CLM extract and the CLP and CLS fractions. Moreover, the CLE fraction contained a high level of phenolic compounds following CLM extract (204.380 ± 2.473 mgGAE/gextract). Table 2 Total Phenolic and Flavonoid Content and Antioxidant Activity Results of C. lycaonica Extract and Fractionsa samples TPC (mg GAE/gextract) TFC (mg CA/gextract) FRAP (mmol Fe2+/gextract) (mmol Fe2+/gTrolox) ABTS (μM Trolox/gextract) (μM Trolox/gBHA) CLM 283.168 ± 2.511a,b,e 42.212 ± 1.411a 362.812 ± 2.291a 0.584 ± 0.023a,c CLP 113.430 ± 1.204b,d,e 12.333 ± 2.517b 52.733 ± 1.201b 0.512 ± 0.053b,e CLE 204.380 ± 2.473c 16.267 ± 1.079c 336.300 ± 1.045c 0.573 ± 0.003c CLB 25.327 ± 1.213d,e 4.853 ± 2.179d,e 251.458 ± 1.471d,e 0.525 ± 0.012d,e CLW 32.987 ± 1.410e 17.124 ± 1.258e 256.700 ± 1.809e 0.523 ± 0.004e Trolox     6879.178 ± 0.745f   BHA       0.605 ± 0.003f a Values are expressed as mean ± SD (n = 3). Values are expressed as mean ± SD (n = 3). Values with the different letters within each column are significantly different (p < 0.05). CLM: methanol extract of C. lycaonica, CLP: petroleum ether fraction of C. lycaonica, CLE: ethyl acetate fraction of C. lycaonica, CLB: n-butanol fraction of C. lycaonica, CLW: water fraction of C. lycaonica. 3.3 In Vitro Antioxidant Activity The results of antioxidant tests are given in Table 2 and Figure 3. The results showed that the extract and fractions demonstrated moderate DPPH activity. So, among the extract and fractions, the CLE fraction was more active than others, with 41% DPPH radical scavenging activity. This research used 0.5 mg/mL concentrations of extract, fractions, and BHA to determine ABTS activity. According to the results, the CLE (0.573 ± 0.003 Trolox/gextract) fraction was found to be the most active compared to others in this assay (p > 0.05). On the other hand, CLM extract (362.812 ± 2.291 mmol Fe2+/gextract) and CLE fraction were the most active (336.300 ± 1.045 mmol Fe2+/gextract) in the FRAP assay (p > 0.05). Figure 3 DPPH radical scavenging activity of C. lycaonica extract and fractions. 3.4 Antimicrobial Activity The MICs of the extracts and reference antimicrobials observed as the result of the study are presented in Table 3. The antimicrobial activities of the extracts were compared to reference antimicrobials. It was observed that the extract and fractions have moderate antimicrobial activity in the range of 128–256 μg/mL. Among the extract and fractions, CLM and CLE showed high antimicrobial activity against C. albicans and CLE fraction against E. coli microorganisms at 128 μg/mL. It has been demonstrated that extract and fractions’ antimicrobial activity is less than the reference antimicrobial agents. Table 3 In Vitro MICs (μg/mL) Observed for the Extract, Fractions, and Reference Antimicrobial Drugsa   microorganisms samples S. a. S. a.* E. c. E. c.* C. a. C. a.* CLM 256 256 256 256 128 128 CLP 256 256 256 256 128 256 CLE 256 256 128 256 128 128 CLB 256 256 128 256 128 256 CLW 256 256 128 256 128 256 ampicillin 2 32 16 16     gentamycin 1 8 1 16     vancomycin 1 4         fluconazole         1 1 a S.a.: S. aureus ATCC 29213; S.a.*: S. aureus isolate (MRSA); E.c.: E. coli ATCC 25922; E.c.*: E. coli isolate (contains broad spectrum β-lactamase enzyme – GSBL-); C.a: C. albicans ATCC 10231; C. a.*: C. albicans isolate. Table 3 presents the extracts’ minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) and reference antimicrobials, as observed in the study. The antimicrobial activities of the extracts were compared to those of the reference antimicrobials. Results showed that the extract and fractions exhibited moderate antimicrobial activity in the 128–256 μg/mL range. CLM and CLE showed higher antimicrobial activity against C. albicans, while the CLE fraction showed high activity against E. coli at 128 μg/mL. However, the antimicrobial activity of the extract and fractions was not as potent as that of the reference antimicrobial agents. 3.5 LC-MS/MS Results The bioactive compounds of active CLM extract and CLE fraction were determined by LC-MS/MS. The compounds were identified from registered mass spectral fragmentation patterns, the NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) mass spectral database (version 2.3), and literature data. According to the results, as myristoleic acid and apigenin were detected in both extract and fraction, caffeic acid-3-glucoside, geniposide, malvidin 3-galactoside, and phloretin 2′-xyloglucoside were determined in the CLM extract; and caffeic acid derivative, cinicin derivative, quercetin–hexose protocatechuic acid, and myrecitin-3-O-(2″-O-galloyl)-hexoside were determined in the CLE fraction only (Table 4 and Figure 4). Figure 4 Mass spectra of the CLM extract (A) and the CLE fraction (B). Table 4 Mass Spectral Characteristics and Identity of Compounds in CLM Extract and CLE Fraction [M – H]− (m/z) MS/MS (m/z) compounds CLM CLE references 225 181, 165 myristoleic acid + + (26) 269 117 apigenin + + (26, 27) 341 179, 135 caffeic acid-3-glucoside + – (26) 387 225, 191, 101 geniposide + – (28) 492 254, 270, 285, 299, 313 malvidin 3-galactoside + – (29) 567 435, 273 phloretin 2′-xyloglucoside + – (30) 377 341, 215, 179, 161, 119 caffeic acid derivative-I – + (31) 423 377, 359, 309, 263, 219, 201, 159, 131 cinicin derivative – + (32) 599 463, 300 quercetin–galactoside protocatechuic acid – + (30) 631 479, 317 myrecitin-3-O-(2″- O-galloyl)-glucoside – + (30) 3.6 Molecular Docking A molecular modeling study of apigenin and myristoleic acid, common in active CLM and CLE extracts, was performed. The protein–ligand interaction energies and the residues with which apigenin, myristoleic acid, and acarbose formed with α-glucosidase and α-amylase are given in Table 5. The interaction energy of apigenin against both enzymes was lower than myristoleic acid and higher than acarbose. The interactions between apigenin and α-glucosidase in 2D and 3D are depicted in Figure 5. Apigenin formed two H bonds with key residues Arg608 (3.72 Å) and Val358 (4.46 Å) and π-sigma interactions with Leu195 (4.41 Å) at the α-glucosidase active site. The binding poses and protein–ligand interactions between the second target enzyme α-amylase and apigenin are shown in Figure 6. Apigenin formed one H bond with the critical amino acid Asp300 and van der Waals interactions with Glu233 in the active pocket of α-amylase. Also, another H bond with Gln63 produced π–π stacking interactions with Tyr62 (4.81 Å) and Trp59 (4.99 Å and 4.28 Å). Full details of protein–ligand interactions of myristoleic acid and acarbose are given in Table 5. Figure 5 Molecular docking binding poses and protein–ligand interaction diagram of α-glucosidase with apigenin (PDB ID: 5NN8). (A) Full view of the α-glucosidase and apigenin complex. (B) Binding mode of apigenin at the α-glucosidase active site. (C) Schematic diagram of protein–ligand interaction depicting H bond and hydrophobic interactions. Figure 6 Molecular docking binding poses and protein–ligand interaction diagram of α-amylase with apigenin (PDB ID: 1CPU). (A) A complete view of the apigenin and α-amylase complex. (B) The manner in which apigenin attaches to the active sites of α-amylase. (C) A schematic diagram of protein–ligand interaction depicts H bonds and hydrophobic interactions. Table 5 Molecular Docking Results and Parameters of the Compounds Apigenin, Myristoleic Acid, and Reference Compounds Acarbose with Human α-Glucosidase and α-Amylase   α-amylase (PDB ID: 1CPU) α-glucosidase (PDB ID: 5NN8)           contact residues         contact residues compounds Vina score cavity volume (Å3) center (x, y, z) docking size (x, y, z) H bonds Van der Waals Vina score cavity volume (Å3) center (x, y, z) docking size (x, y, z) H bonds Van der Waals apigenin –8.6 859 5, 16, 44 30, 21, 21 Gln63 (4.19 Å) and Asp300 (4.81 Å) Trp58, Trp59, Tyr62, Leu162, Thr163, Leu165, Arg195, Asp197, Glu233, His299 and His305 –6.9 745 –7, −20, 74 21, 21, 21 Val358 (4.46 Å) and Arg608 (3.72 Å) Pro194, Leu195, Glu196, Val357, Gly359, Phe490, Thr491, Leu496, Leu565, Leu571, Leu574, Leu577, Thr578, Ile581, Gly605 and Tyr609 myristoleic acid –4.8 859 5, 16, 44 30, 21, 21 Glu233 (4.88 Å) Trp58, Trp59, Tyr62, His101, Tyr151, Leu162, Thr163, Leu165, Arg195, Asp197, Ala198, His201, Ile235, His299, Asp300 and His305 –4.4 745 –7, −20, 74 21, 21, 21   Pro194, Leu195, Glu196, Val357, Val358, Gly359, Phe490, Thr491, Leu496, Leu565, Leu571, Leu574, Leu577, Thr578, Ile581, Gly605, Arg608 and Tyr609 acarbose –10.8 859 5, 16, 44 28, 28, 28 Arg195 (6.71 Å), Gln63 (5.49Å), Thr163 (4.86 Å), His299 (5.66 Å), Asp300 (5.26 Å) and His305 (4.03 Å) Trp58, Trp59, Tyr62, Val98, His101, Gly104, Tyr151, Leu162, Gly164, Leu165, Asp197, Ala198, Lys200, His201, Glu233, Ile235, Glu240, Gly306 and Ala307 –8.5 745 –7, −20, 74 28, 28, 28 Asp356 (4.60 Å), Tyr360 (3.43 Å and 4.96 Å) and Arg608 (5.67 Å) Glu196, Leu355, Gly359, Tyr360, Pro361, Phe362, Met363, Leu496, Ile581, His584, Arg585, Val588, Tyr609, His717 and Glu866 3.7 Molecular Dynamics (MD) Simulations MD simulation was performed for 150 ns in this study to demonstrate the stability of the apigenin and myristoleic acid complexes with α-glucosidase and α-amylase obtained from the molecular docking study.33 Fitting of apigenin to the backbone atoms of α-glucosidase and α-amylase, conformational changes of the ligand at the active site were analyzed by RMSD calculations.34 As shown in Figure 7A, the α-glucosidase active site of apigenin remained stable below 0.45 nm and had a mean value of 0.39 ± 0.39 nm. As given in Figure 7B in the other MD simulation, apigenin and α-amylase were stable around 0.2 nm for the first 60 ns, fluctuating up to 0.8 nm between 60 and 75 nm, after which there were shifts but below 0.4 nm, and remained stable on average around 0.2 nm. H-bond analysis is another vital trajectory analysis to examine protein–ligand stability.35 As shown in Figure 7C,D, fixed H bonds ranging from 1 to 2 over 150 ns usually form 2 H bonds up to 80 ns and usually 3 H bonds up to 150 ns between apigenin and α-amylase. Figure 7 Molecular dynamics simulations trajectory analysis of the apigenin with α-glucosidase and α-amylase complex. (A) Root mean square deviation (RMSD) plot obtained by fitting apigenin to α-glucosidase enzyme, (B) RMSD plot obtained by fitting apigenin to α-amylase enzyme, (C) Intermolecular hydrogen bonds between apigenin and α-glucosidase, and (D) H bonds between apigenin and α-amylase for 150 ns. PCA analysis was performed to compare the binding stability of apigenin against α-glucosidase and α-amylase.36 As shown in Figure 8A, apigenin in the α-glucosidase–apigenin complex is between −0.7 and 0.9 nm in projection on eigenvector 1 and between −0.6 and 0.1 nm in projection on eigenvector 3. In contrast, in the α-amylase–apigenin complex, apigenin is between −1 and 3.2 nm in projection on eigenvector 1 and between −1.1 and 2.5 nm in projection on eigenvector 3. Other PCA analyses gave values below 0.05 and 0.5 nm2 with apigenin, α-glucosidase, and α-amylase according to the eigenvalues of the covariance matrix analysis, respectively (Figure 8B). As a final MD trajectory analysis, an MD animation video was created by recording binding poses at 100 frames between 0 and 150 to demonstrate the interactions between apigenin and α-glucosidase and α-amylase.37 The interactions of apigenin and α-glucosidase are given in Video S1, and the interactions of apigenin and α-amylase are shown in Video S2 (Supporting Information). Figure 8 (A) Principal component analysis (PCA) 2D projection of apigenin atoms motion in α-glucosidase and to α-amylase was constructed by plotting the first two principal components (projection on eigenvector 1 and projection on eigenvector 3) in conformational space. (B) Eigenvalues plotted against the corresponding eigenvector indices obtained from the covariance matrix of the α-glucosidase and α-amylase backbone atoms fitted apigenin constructed from the equilibrated MD trajectories. Binding free energy MMPBSA is an important method used to examine the stability and potency of the protein–ligand complex.38 Therefore, the MMPBSA between α-glucosidase and α-amylase with apigenin was calculated from 1500 frames between 0 and 150 ns.39 As detailed in Table 6, −28.39 ± 2.34 kcal/mol binding free energy between α-glucosidase and apigenin, and −22.93 ± 4.98 kcal/mol binding free energy between α-amylase and apigenin was measured. According to the MMPBSA calculation, apigenin gave higher binding energy and lower standard deviation values with α-glucosidase than with α-amylase. Table 6 Binding Free Energy MMPBSA Computations of α-Glucosidase and α-Amylase with Apigenin from 1500 Frames between 0 and 150 nsa   average energy (kcal/mol) energy component α-glucosidase & apigenin α-amylase & apigenin ΔVDWAALS –31.42 ± 2.56 –24.77 ± 2.97 ΔEEL –13.58 ± 3.81 –28.51 ± 10.5 ΔEGB 21.12 ± 3.34 33.68 ± 6.92 ΔESURF –4.52 ± 0.2 –3.33 ± 0.4 ΔGGAS –44.99 ± 4.03 –53.28 ± 11.06 ΔGSOLV 16.6 ± 3.29 30.35 ± 6.63 ΔTOTAL –28.39 ± 2.34 –22.93 ± 4.98 a Δ: Complex–Receptor–Ligand, VDWAALS: Van der Waals, EEL: Electrostatic energy, EGB: electrostatic solvation free energy evaluated from the generalized Born equation, ESURF: the nonpolar component of the solvation energy, GGAS: gas-phase energy, GSOLV: solvation free energy. 4 Discussion The literature shows that few taxonomical studies on the C. lycaonica species exist. Various studies are related to inhibiting different enzymes and the antioxidant effect of the Centaurea species. So, this is the first study on enzyme inhibition, antimicrobial activities, antioxidant capacity, and phytochemical characterization of the methanol extract and different fractions. In a study, the ethanol extract of the aerial parts of C. rigida was found to be active in the total antioxidant test (3.522 ± 0.166 mmol/L).40 In another study, the different extracts of the Turkish Centaurea species C. hypoleuca were studied in various activities. As a result, similar to C. lycaonica results, the flower ethyl acetate extract was more active than others in all activity tests, especially the antimicrobial activity assay (MIC value of 8 mg mL–1 against MRSA). Moreover, catechin and chlorogenic acid were detected as the major compounds in the extract.41 In another study, the ultrasonicated methanol extract of C. amaena exhibited high TPC and TFC, as well as total antioxidant, DPPH radical scavenging, and antimicrobial activity. Quercetin, quercetin-3-β-d-glucoside, and protocatechuic acid were detected as the main compounds of the extract.42 These data also supported the C. lycaonica results. According to another study, C. baseri, the local endemic species in Türkiye, was investigated. It has been shown that the methanol extract did not show antioxidant properties but was found to be the most active in antimicrobial tests against Candida utilis. The extract contained several biologically active compounds, including protocatechuic acid hexoside, apigenin, caffeic acid, ferulic acid, and cinicin derivative.32 The results of our study have agreed with this study, so the CLE fraction was found to be more active against Candida utilis, and the active compounds were also similar in this study. In a study, the enzyme inhibitory activity and antioxidant properties of C. bornmuelleri species were estimated. According to the results, the highest content of phenolic compounds and flavonoids was found in methanol and ethyl acetate extracts, such as C. lycaonica. Moreover, the water extract showed potent activity in DPPH (38.54 mg of TE/gextract) and ABTS (57.75 mg of TE/gextract) and FRAP assays (69.81 mg of TE/gextract) and ethyl acetate extract in tyrosinase (69.84 mg of kojic acid equivalent/gextract), α-amylase (19.90 mg of acarbose equivalent [ACAE]/gextract), and α-glucosidase (33.12 mg of ACAE/gextract) tests. Additionally, chlorogenic acid, luteolin derivatives, apigenin kaempferol-O-deoxyhexoside, and isorhamnetin were found at high concentrations in the extracts.43 Another study investigated the antioxidant, enzyme inhibitory, antimicrobial, and cytotoxic activities of C. bingoelensi. As a result, the highest phenolic content (41.57 mg of gallic acid equivalent (GAE)/gextract) was found in the hydro-methanol extract as well as the highest reducing capacity (136.87 and 82.16 mg of Trolox equivalent [TE]/gextract, for cupric reducing antioxidant capacity and ferric reducing antioxidant power, respectively), radical scavenging potential (70.72 and 76.53 mg TE/gextract, in DPPH and ABTS tests, respectively), and significant antifungal activity against C. albicans. Furthermore, phenolic acids and flavonoid derivatives were detected in the extract.44 Although, the endemic species from Türkiye C. nerimaniae also showed a potent antioxidant and antimicrobial capacity based on biologically active compounds such as cirsimaritin, hispidulin, apigenin, isokaempferide, and apigenin 7-O-glucoside.45 In another study, similar to C. lycaonica, the ethyl acetate fraction of the ethanol extract of C. virgata was found to be more active in DPPH (IC50 = 138.7 μg/mL) and ABTS radical scavenging activity. This fraction was also rich in phenolic compounds.46 In a study, C. drabifolia subsp. drabifolia and C. lycopifolia extracts were observed in terms of the TPC (18.33–32.84 mgGAE/gextract) and TFC content (2.88–22.39 mgRE/gextract) and antioxidant activity. Similarly to C. lycaonica, methanol, and water extracts showed more potent antioxidant abilities and enzyme inhibition effects (except for tyrosinase). In contrast to C. lycaonica, the water extract also exerted considerable antimicrobial effects.47 In another study, the ethyl acetate extract of the stem from C. triumfetti was found to have high antimicrobial and enzyme inhibition activity, as described in C. lycaonica results. Moreover, the major component of the extract was found to be chlorogenic acid.48 The acetone extract of C. babylonica showed the best antibacterial activity against Bacillus cereus, P. aeruginosa, and C. albicans (MIC: 1.6 mg/mL).49 A study determined the antioxidant capacities of C. balsamita and C. albonitens seed extracts by DPPH and ABTS assays. Results were 26.60 and 27.12% in DPPH and 80.61 and 95.99 mmol Trolox eq/g in ABTS, respectively. The total phenolic content of the seeds was determined to be 9019 and 11501 mg GAE/kg, respectively.50 In a study, various extracts of C. pulcherrima var. freynii were investigated. It was observed that the ethyl acetate extract showed the most effective activity, including total phenolic, flavonoid, antioxidant, and antimicrobial activities.51 As can be seen, these findings support the results of C. lycaonica. A study investigated the antioxidant activity of chloroform extracts prepared from the aerial parts of C. kilaea, C. cuneifolia, C. salicifolia, and C. stenolepis. Among all the tested extracts, the highest amounts of total phenolic and antioxidant capacity were found in the C. salicifolia extract.52 It is well known that the highest antidiabetic and antioxidant capacity is related to phenolic and flavonoid compounds.53 Based on these studies, it can be said that our results agreed with the findings described in the literature. Our study found the highest TPC and TFC content in the methanol extract and ethyl acetate fraction. With this, enzyme inhibition and antioxidant activities were also found in the methanol extract and ethyl acetate fraction. Moreover, it can be said that the detected compounds in CAM and CAE agreed with other reports on the Centaurea species.54 From molecular docking study results, we can consider that the potent antidiabetic and antioxidant activity of active extract and fraction may be explained by these compounds, especially apigenin and myristoleic acid. A molecular docking study was carried out against α-glucosidase and α-amylase with apigenin and myristoleic acid, which are common in extract and fraction that are active and show higher activity than the standard compound. According to their interaction energies, apigenin showed a higher affinity for both targets than myristoleic acid. In addition, the interaction of apigenin with α-glucosidase was more potent than that of α-amylase, according to the binding energies. Apigenin formed critical H bond interactions necessary for activity with Arg608 at the α-glucosidase active site and Asp300 at the α-amylase active site. According to the trajectory data and animation videos of 150 ns MD simulation to examine the stability between apigenin and α-glucosidase and between apigenin and α-amylase in an in silico physiological environment, apigenin formed potent interactions at both target protein active sites. However, according to RMSD, PCA analyses, and MMPBSA computations, the protein–ligand complex formed between apigenin and α-glucosidase was more stable than the protein–ligand complex formed between apigenin and α-amylase as in vitro enzyme assays. In addition, MD simulation of protein–ligand complexes formed between myristoleic acid and α-glucosidase and α-amylase was performed. Still, myristoleic acid did not form stable interactions with both target enzymes. There are studies about the antidiabetic activity of apigenin in the literature.55 However, it is necessary to investigate whether the activity of the extract and fraction is due to these compounds or the synergistic effect of the substances. 5 Conclusions The biological activity and phytochemical composition studies on the local endemic and unexplored species C. lycaonica was carried out for the first time in this study. This species’ methanol extract and ethyl acetate fraction showed potential enzyme inhibition and antioxidant activity. The phytochemical analyses of this extract and fraction showed the presence of phenolic compounds and flavonoids. These compounds’ molecular docking study results identified apigenin and myristoleic acid as active substances. However, further investigation is needed to determine the antidiabetic activity and the mechanism of action of these compounds. Data Availability Statement The data are contained within the article and the Supporting Information. Supporting Information Available The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsomega.3c01819.Video SI1: MD Simulation animation of 100 snapshots between 0 and 150 ns of human lysosomal acid-α-glucosidase with apigenin (MP4) Video SI2: MD Simulation animation of 100 snapshots between 0 and 150 ns of human pancreatic α-amylase in complex with apigenin (MP4) Supplementary Material ao3c01819_si_001.mp4 ao3c01819_si_002.mp4 Author Contributions Conceptualization and methodology: L.P., H.F., and I.C.; validation: L.P., H.F., and I.C.; formal analysis, U.İ., H.F., L.P., and I.C.:; investigation: L.P., H.F., and I.C.; resources: L.P., H.F., I.C., U.İ., C.C., and O.T.; data curation: L.P., H.F., I.C., U.İ., C.C., and O.T.; writing—original draft: L.P., H.F., and I.C.; writing—review and editing: L.P., H.F., and I.C.; visualization: L.P., H.F., I.C., U.İ., C.C., and O.T.; supervision and project administration: L.P.; and funding acquisition: L.P., H.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. This research did not receive any specific funding. The authors declare no competing financial interest. Acknowledgments The authors thank the Erciyes University Drug Application and Research Center (ERFARMA) for their support in using LC-MS/MS in this study. This paper’s molecular dynamics numerical calculations were partially performed at TUBITAK ULAKBIM in TÜRKIYE, High Performance and Grid Computing Center (TRUBA resources). Abbreviations CLM methanol extract of C. lycaonica CLP petroleum ether fraction of C. lycaonica CLE ethyl acetate fraction of C. lycaonica CLB n-butanol fraction of C. lycaonica CLW water fraction of C. lycaonica DPPH 1,1-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl radical ABTS 2,2-azinobis (3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonate) radical FRAP Ferric reducing ability power TPC the total phenolic content TFC total flavonoid content LC-MS/MS liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry/mass spectrometry NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology ==== Refs References Katiyar C. ; Gupta A. ; Kanjilal S. ; Katiyar S. Drug discovery from plant sources: An integrated approach. Ayu 2012, 33 , 10 10.4103/0974-8520.100295.23049178 Pham-Huy L. A. ; He H. ; Pham-Huy C. Free radicals, antioxidants in disease and health. Int. J. Biomed. Sci. 2008, 4 , 89–96.23675073 Davis P. H. Flora of Turkey and the East Aegean Islands. In Flora of Turkey and the East Aegean Islands; Edinburgh University Press, 1970; Vol. 3 . Güner A. ; Aslan S. Türkiye bitkileri listesi:(damarlı bitkiler); Nezahat Gökyiğit Botanik Bahçesi Yayınları, 2012. Ferreira L. G. ; Dos Santos R. N. ; Oliva G. ; Andricopulo A. D. Molecular docking and structure-based drug design strategies. Molecules 2015, 20 , 13384–13421. 10.3390/molecules200713384.26205061 Gschwend D. A. ; Good A. C. ; Kuntz I. D. Molecular docking towards drug discovery. J. Mol. Recognit. 1996, 9 , 175–186. 10.1002/(sici)1099-1352(199603)9:2<175::aid-jmr260>3. 0.co;2-d.8877811 Zhao H. ; Caflisch A. Molecular dynamics in drug design. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 2015, 91 , 4–14. 10.1016/j.ejmech.2014.08.004.25108504 Paşayeva L. ; Özalp B. ; Fatullayev H. Potential enzyme inhibitory properties of extracts and fractions from fruit latex of Ficus carica-based on inhibition of α-amylase and α-glucosidase. J. Food Meas. Charact. 2020, 14 , 2819–2827. 10.1007/s11694-020-00527-9. Eruygur N. ; Ucar E. ; Akpulat H. A. ; Shahsavari K. ; Safavi S. M. ; Kahrizi D. In vitro antioxidant assessment, screening of enzyme inhibitory activities of methanol and water extracts and gene expression in Hypericum lydium. Mol. Biol. Rep. 2019, 46 , 2121–2129. 10.1007/s11033-019-04664-3.30762165 Zengin G. ; Aumeeruddy-Elalfi Z. ; Mollica A. ; Yilmaz M. A. ; Mahomoodally M. F. In vitro and in silico perspectives on biological and phytochemical profile of three halophyte species—A source of innovative phytopharmaceuticals from nature. Phytomedicine 2018, 38 , 35–44. 10.1016/j.phymed.2017.10.017.29425653 Paşayeva L. ; İnce U. ; Fatullayev H. ; Ceylan C. ; Tugay O. Hypoglycemic, antioxidant, antimicrobial activities and phytochemical analyses of Rhaponticoides iconiensis leafy stem extracts. Vegetos 2021, 34 , 592–599. 10.1007/s42535-021-00250-w. Mollica A. ; Zengin G. ; Sinan K. I. ; Marletta M. ; Pieretti S. ; Stefanucci A. ; Etienne O. K. ; Jekő J. ; Cziáky Z. ; Bahadori M. B. ; et al. A Study on Chemical Characterization and Biological Abilities of Alstonia boonei Extracts Obtained by Different Techniques. Antioxidants 2022, 11 , 2171 10.3390/antiox11112171.36358543 Patel J. B. Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing; Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, 2017. Wayne P. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute: Reference method for broth dilution antifungal susceptibility testing of yeasts; approved standard. CLSI document M27-A3 and Supplement S 2008, 3 , 6–12. Trott O. ; Olson A. J. AutoDock Vina: improving the speed and accuracy of docking with a new scoring function, efficient optimization, and multithreading. J. Comput. Chem. 2010, 31 , 455–461. 10.1002/jcc.21334.19499576 a Yang X. ; Liu Y. ; Gan J. ; Xiao Z. X. ; Cao Y. FitDock: protein-ligand docking by template fitting. Brief Bioinform 2022, 23 , bbac087 10.1093/bib/bbac087.35289358 b Liu Y. ; Yang X. ; Gan J. ; Chen S. ; Xiao Z. X. ; Cao Y. CB-Dock2: improved protein-ligand blind docking by integrating cavity detection, docking and homologous template fitting. Nucleic Acids Res. 2022, 50 , W159–164. 10.1093/nar/gkac394.35609983 Roig-Zamboni V. ; Cobucci-Ponzano B. ; Iacono R. ; Ferrara M. C. ; Germany S. ; Bourne Y. ; Parenti G. ; Moracci M. ; Sulzenbacher G. Structure of human lysosomal acid alpha-glucosidase-a guide for the treatment of Pompe disease. Nat. Commun. 2017, 8 , 1111 10.1038/s41467-017-01263-3.29061980 Brayer G. D. ; Sidhu G. ; Maurus R. ; Rydberg E. H. ; Braun C. ; Wang Y. ; Nguyen N. T. ; Overall C. M. ; Withers S. G. Subsite mapping of the human pancreatic alpha-amylase active site through structural, kinetic, and mutagenesis techniques. Biochemistry 2000, 39 , 4778–4791. 10.1021/bi9921182.10769135 Varadi M. ; Anyango S. ; Deshpande M. ; Nair S. ; Natassia C. ; Yordanova G. ; Yuan D. ; Stroe O. ; Wood G. ; Laydon A. ; et al. AlphaFold Protein Structure Database: massively expanding the structural coverage of protein-sequence space with high-accuracy models. Nucleic Acids Res. 2022, 50 , D439–D444. 10.1093/nar/gkab1061.34791371 Pettersen E. F. ; Goddard T. D. ; Huang C. C. ; Meng E. C. ; Couch G. S. ; Croll T. I. ; Morris J. H. ; Ferrin T. E. UCSF ChimeraX: Structure visualization for researchers, educators, and developers. Protein Sci. 2021, 30 , 70–82. 10.1002/pro.3943.32881101 Abraham M. J. ; Murtola T. ; Schulz R. ; Páll S. ; Smith J. C. ; Hess B. ; Lindahl E. GROMACS: High performance molecular simulations through multi-level parallelism from laptops to supercomputers. SoftwareX 2015, 1–2 , 19–25. 10.1016/j.softx.2015.06.001. Jo S. ; Kim T. ; Iyer V. G. ; Im W. CHARMM-GUI: a web-based graphical user interface for CHARMM. J. Comput. Chem. 2008, 29 , 1859–1865. 10.1002/jcc.20945.18351591 Lindorff-Larsen K. ; Piana S. ; Palmo K. ; Maragakis P. ; Klepeis J. L. ; Dror R. O. ; Shaw D. E. Improved side-chain torsion potentials for the Amber ff99SB protein force field. Proteins 2010, 78 , 1950–1958. 10.1002/prot.22711.20408171 Lee J. ; Hitzenberger M. ; Rieger M. ; Kern N. R. ; Zacharias M. ; Im W. CHARMM-GUI supports the Amber force fields. J. Chem. Phys. 2020, 153 , 035103 10.1063/5.0012280.32716185 Valdés-Tresanco M. S. ; Valdes-Tresanco M. E. ; Valiente P. A. ; Moreno E. gmx_MMPBSA: A New Tool to Perform End-State Free Energy Calculations with GROMACS. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2021, 17 , 6281–6291. 10.1021/acs.jctc.1c00645.34586825 Paşayeva L. ; Eruygur N. ; Ayaz F. ; Tugay O. ; Fatullayev H. ; Assessment of the antioxidant and enzyme inhibition activities of Cousinia iconica with focus on phytochemical investigation by LC-MS/MS. Plant Biosystems-An International Journal Dealing with all Aspects of Plant Biology 2020, 155 , 1178–1188. 10.1080/11263504.2020.1829736. Kubik J. ; Waszak Ł. ; Adamczuk G. ; Humeniuk E. ; Iwan M. ; Adamczuk K. ; Michalczuk M. ; Korga-Plewko A. ; Józefczyk A. Phytochemical Analysis and Anti-Cancer Properties of Extracts of Centaurea castriferrei Borbás & Waisb Genus of Centaurea L. Molecules 2022, 27 , 7537 10.3390/molecules27217537.36364358 Wang S.-C. ; Huang C.-M. ; Tsai T.-H. Determinations of geniposide using LC/MS/MS methods via forming ammonium and acetate adducts. Microchem. J. 2007, 86 , 174–182. 10.1016/j.microc.2007.02.005. Mclafferty F. W. ; Stauffer D. Wiley Registry of Mass Spectral Data; John Wiley; Hoboken, NJ, 2009. Sobeh M. ; ElHawary E. ; Peixoto H. ; Labib R. M. ; Handoussa H. ; Swilam N. ; El-Khatib A. H. ; Sharapov F. ; Mohamed T. ; Krstin S. ; et al. Identification of phenolic secondary metabolites from Schotia brachypetala Sond.(Fabaceae) and demonstration of their antioxidant activities in Caenorhabditis elegans. PeerJ 2016, 4 , e2404 10.7717/peerj.2404.27896020 Paşayeva L. ; Şafak E. K. ; Arıgün T. ; Fatullayev H. ; Tugay O. In vitro antioxidant capacity and phytochemical characterization of Eryngium kotschyi Boiss. J. Pharm. Pharm. Res. 2020, 8 , 18–31. 10.56499/jppres19.655_8.1.18. Köse Y. B. ; İşcan G. ; Göger F. ; Akalın G. ; Demirci B. ; Başer K. H. C. Chemical composition and biological activity of Centaurea baseri: new species from Turkey. Chem. Biodiversity 2016, 13 , 1369–1379. 10.1002/cbdv.201600070. Pasayeva L. ; Fatullayev H. ; Celik I. ; Unal G. ; Bozkurt N. M. ; Tugay O. ; Abdellattif M. H. Evaluation of the Chemical Composition, Antioxidant and Antidiabetic Activity of Rhaponticoides iconiensis Flowers: Effects on Key Enzymes Linked to Type 2 Diabetes In Vitro, In Silico and on Alloxan-Induced Diabetic Rats In Vivo. Antioxidants 2022, 11 , 2284 10.3390/antiox11112284.36421470 Khairy A. ; Hammoda H. M. ; Celik I. ; Zaatout H. H. ; Ibrahim R. S. Discovery of potential natural dihydroorotate dehydrogenase inhibitors and their synergism with brequinar via integrated molecular docking, dynamic simulations and in vitro approach. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12 , 19037 10.1038/s41598-022-23006-1.36351991 Celik I. ; Tallei T. E. A computational comparative analysis of the binding mechanism of molnupiravir’s active metabolite to RNA-dependent RNA polymerase of wild-type and Delta subvariant AY. 4 of SARS-CoV-2. J. Cell. Biochem. 2022, 123 , 807–818. 10.1002/jcb.30226.35132671 Shi S. ; Sui K. ; Liu W. ; Lei Y. ; Zhang S. ; Zhang Q. Revealing binding selectivity of ligands toward murine double minute 2 and murine double minute X based on molecular dynamics simulations and binding free energy calculations. J. Biomol. Struct. Dyn. 2020, 38 , 5081–5094. 10.1080/07391102.2019.1695671.31755361 Ghallab D. S. ; Shawky E. ; Metwally A. M. ; Celik I. ; Ibrahim R. S. ; Mohyeldin M. M. Integrated in silico–in vitro strategy for the discovery of potential xanthine oxidase inhibitors from Egyptian propolis and their synergistic effect with allopurinol and febuxostat. RSC Adv. 2022, 12 , 2843–2872. 10.1039/D1RA08011C.35425287 Genheden S. ; Ryde U. The MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA methods to estimate ligand-binding affinities. Expert Opin. Drug Discov. 2015, 10 , 449–461. 10.1517/17460441.2015.1032936.25835573 Ibrahim M. A. A. ; Abdelrahman A. H. ; Atia M. A. ; Mohamed T. A. ; Moustafa M. F. ; Hakami A. R. ; Khalifa S. A. ; Alhumaydhi F. A. ; Alrumaihi F. ; Abidi S. H. ; et al. Blue biotechnology: computational screening of sarcophyton cembranoid diterpenes for SARS-CoV-2 main protease inhibition. Mar. Drugs 2021, 19 , 391 10.3390/md19070391.34356816 Kına E. ; Uysal İ. ; Mohammed F. S. ; Doğan M. ; Sevindik M. In-vitro antioxidant and oxidant properties of Centaurea rigida. Turkish J. Agric.-Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 9 , 1905–1907. 10.24925/turjaf.v9i10.1905-1907.4603. Özcan K. ; Acet T. ; Çorbacı C. Centaurea hypoleuca DC: Phenolic content, antimicrobial, antioxidant and enzyme inhibitory activities. South African J. Botany 2019, 127 , 313–318. 10.1016/j.sajb.2019.10.020. Albayrak S. ; Atasagun B. ; Aksoy A. Comparison of phenolic components and biological activities of two Centaurea sp. obtained by three extraction techniques. Asian Pac. J. Trop. Med. 2017, 10 , 599–606. 10.1016/j.apjtm.2017.06.010.28756926 Zengin G. ; Llorent-Martínez E. ; Sinan K. I. ; Yıldıztugay E. ; Picot-Allain C. ; Mahomoodally M. F. Chemical profiling of Centaurea bornmuelleri Hausskn. aerial parts by HPLC-MS/MS and their pharmaceutical effects: From nature to novel perspectives. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 2019, 174 , 406–413. 10.1016/j.jpba.2019.06.009.31212141 Uysal A. ; Zengin G. ; Mahomoodally M. F. ; Picot-Allain C. ; Jekő J. ; Cziáky Z. ; Rodrigues M. J. ; Ak G. ; Polat R. ; Urusan Z. ; et al. A comparative study on biological properties and chemical profiles of different solvent extracts from Centaurea bingoelensis, an endemic plant of Turkey. Process Biochem. 2021, 102 , 315–324. 10.1016/j.procbio.2021.01.023. Melikoglu G. ; Ozsoy N. ; Yilmaz-Ozden T. ; Erbay M. S. ; Anil S. ; Celik B. O. Flavonoids and biological activities of Centaurea nerimaniae S. Kultur. Farmacia 2018, 66 , 1070–1075. 10.31925/farmacia.2018.6.22. Aksoy H. Evaluation of the biological and wound healing activities of Centaurea virgata. Clin. Experim. Health Sci. 2020, 10 , 304–308. 10.33808/marusbed.789734. Zengin G. ; Zheleva-Dimitrova D. ; Gevrenova R. ; Nedialkov P. ; Mocan A. ; Ćirić A. ; Glamočlija J. ; Soković M. ; Aktumsek A. ; Mahomoodally M. F. Identification of phenolic components via LC–MS analysis and biological activities of two Centaurea species: C. drabifolia subsp. drabifolia and C. lycopifolia. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 2018, 149 , 436–441. 10.1016/j.jpba.2017.11.045.29169111 Acet T. Determining the phenolic components by using HPLC and biological activity of Centaurea triumfetti. Plant Biosystems-An International Journal Dealing with all Aspects of Plant Biology 2021, 155 , 159–164. 10.1080/11263504.2020.1722275. Guvensen N. C. ; Keskin D. ; Gunes H. ; Oktay M. K. ; Yildirim H. Antimicrobial property and antiproliferative activity of Centaurea babylonica (L.) L. on human carcinomas and cervical cancer cell lines. Ann. Agric. Environ. Med. 2019, 26 , 290–297. 10.26444/aaem/108563.31232061 Peker S. ; Baştürk A. Volatile compounds, fatty acid composition and antioxidant activity of Centaurea albonitens and Centaurea balsamita seeds growing in Van, Turkey. Eur. J. Nutr. Food Safety 2019, 187–199. 10.9734/ejnfs/2019/v11i430161. Ozcan K. ; Acet T. In vitro antioxidant and antimicrobial activities of the five different solvent extracts of Centaurea pulcherrima var. freynii from Turkey. Fresenius Environ. Bull. 2018, 27 , 4047–4051. Sekerler T. ; Sen A. ; Bitis L. ; Sener A. In Anticancer, Antioxidant and Anti-Inflammatory Activities of Chloroform Extracts from Some Centaurea Species, Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute Proceedings, 2018; p 1542. Chipiti T. ; Ibrahim M. A. ; Singh M. ; Islam M. S. In vitro α-amylase and α-glucosidase inhibitory and cytotoxic activities of extracts from Cissus cornifolia planch parts. Pharmacognosy magazine 2013, 13 , S329 10.4103/pm.pm_223_16. Zheleva-Dimitrova D. ; Zengin G. ; Sinan K. I. ; Yıldıztugay E. ; Mahomoodally M. F. ; Ak G. ; Picot-Allain M. C. N. ; Gevrenova R. Identification of bioactive compounds from Rhaponticoides iconiensis extracts and their bioactivities: An endemic plant to Turkey flora. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 2020, 190 , 113537 10.1016/j.jpba.2020.113537.32889505 Sahnoun M. ; Saibi W. ; Brini F. ; Bejar S. Apigenin isolated from A. americana encodes human and Aspergillus oryzae S2 α-amylase inhibitions: credible approach for antifungal and antidiabetic therapies. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2018, 55 , 1489–1498. 10.1007/s13197-018-3065-6.29606763